Vice President and Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris made a surprise appearance Monday on the opening night of the Democratic National Convention in Chicago.
Her remarks celebrated President Joe Biden, whose speech closed out the night. And her ensemble made it clear what she thinks about any past, present or future media commentary about her fashion choices.
Reader, she wore a tan suit. Not, as pundits were quick to point out, the more typical convention colors of red, white, blue or black.
Some took it as a pointed, and cheeky, callback to the apoplectic fits thrown by conservative pundits and other Republicans 10 years ago when President Obama showed up at a press conference in a suit of similar hue. At the time, Fox News host Lou Dobbs characterized the sartorial move as “shocking.” Representative Peter King (R-NY) went further and called it “unpresidential.”
Pointed and cheeky is definitely on-brand for the Harris-Walz campaign — see also the recent conservative Doritos meltdown. More important, Harris made it abundantly clear that she will be making her own decisions about fashion, whether the media, conservative and otherwise, likes it or not.
What a relief. Ever since Harris became the Democratic candidate, nothing has been more boring and infuriating than the ongoing discussion over whether Harris will be making “bolder” choices to update a wardrobe fashion pundits inevitably describe as “safe” and “conservative.”
The New York Times came out of the box early, suggesting that Harris’ decision to begin her whirlwind presidential campaign in her “dull” vice presidential “uniform” of “neutral pantsuits,” along with “her usual signature pearls and 70-millimeter Manolo Blahnik heels,” begged the question: “Does she look presidential?”
Striding across the stage at her very own presidential convention in a tan Chloé pantsuit, Harris underlined how ridiculous, and sexist, that question is. She knows every suit, blouse and piece of jewelry she wears is going to be scrutinized like something out of “The Da Vinci Code” for political messaging and “hidden” meaning, so why not just put it all out there on Day 1?
She may well be our next president and she’s wearing tan — get over it.
It would be lovely to think this will end the breathless speculation about whether Harris will be drastically changing her style and what that might mean for the future of the republic. There is no fashion template for a female president, but as vice president, a former senator (D-CA), a former attorney general of California and a former district attorney for San Francisco, Harris has spent most of her life assembling public-facing professional, casual and evening attire appropriate for a person in authority. And it’s worked out pretty well so far.
You can love her politics or hate it, but does it really matter at this point if what she’s wearing on any given day doesn’t appear “bold” enough?
Alas, it does. Harris is running for president while being female, so her fashion choices will be made to matter. Her campaign attire, her accessories, her formalwear, her outerwear and especially her shoes.
Bold or safe, Harris is forced to pay the ultimate female tax — she must devote far more time, energy and money to her wardrobe decisions than her male opponent.
Just ask Hillary Clinton, who during her long political life as first lady, senator and presidential candidate generated entire news cycles based on her predilection for pantsuits, for bold colors, for switching hair styles, for (gasp) occasionally attempting a slightly lower neckline.
The idea that a pantsuit, or a skirt suit, or a dress may not look “presidential” blatantly defines “presidential” as a man wearing a dark suit, a white or blue shirt, a red or blue tie and black or brown lace-up shoes.
Yeah, that’s not dull or uniform-like at all.
Characterizing Harris as, thus far, choosing to look “conservative” sets a damned-if-she-does-damned-if-she-doesn’t sexist trap. Imagine the reaction if she really switched it up and started campaigning sleeveless or in a daisy print. Or if she truly “played it safe” and appeared in only dark colors and flats like most male presidential candidates, including her current opponent.
Calling the panoply of shades she regularly wears — including salmon, lavender, pink and electric blue — “neutral” (another word that has been liberally applied to her wardrobe) only underlines the complete double standard. At least until a male presidential candidate attempts to rock a teal suit.
Harris appears to take pleasure in her fashion choices, whether it be Carolina Herrera and Manolo Blahnik or skinny black jeans and Converse Chucks.
But the scrutiny she faces, positive or negative, adds a level of difficulty that her opponent, with his inevitable boxy blue suit and long red tie, simply does not face and has never faced.
Trump may spend an unusual amount of time, at least for a male presidential candidate, in hair and makeup, but he doesn’t need to worry about “the statement” his necklace is making. Or his heel height. Or if too many “neutral” tones makes him seem deferential.
As the reactions to the tan suit proves, whatever Harris wears, it will be praised and criticized, debated and deconstructed, down to the most granular details. Her pearls have their own mythology at this point, her Chuck Taylors consistently make news and she is currently being urged to embrace the fashion of Shirley Chisholm and/or the styles and colors of her ancestral lands, Jamaica and India.
On Monday night, Harris sent the only fashion message she needed to send. She’s running for president; if she wins, whatever she wears will look presidential. Because it will be.